A320 FLT CREW HAS HEADING DEV DURING RNAV ARR INTO LAS.

Narrative

DSNDING FROM 11000 FT TO 8000 FT ON THE TRAGR RNAV TWO ARR; WE WERE BTWN THE TRAGR AND IPUMY INTXN AT A SPD OF 250 KTS. THE ACFT WAS FLYING ON AUTOPLT. LAS APCH ADVISED US TO EXPECT RWY 19L. ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED TRAGR RNAV TWO TO RWY 25L. I ENTERED THE NEW RWY INTO THE MCDU. I THEN NOTIFIED THE CAPT OF THE NEW INFO THAT I HAD INPUT. AT IPUMY; THE ACFT BEGAN A TURN TO THE N FOR R TFC FOR RWY 19L AS PER THE DATA IN THE MCDU. 15 SECONDS INTO THE L TURN; APCH CTL ADVISED A TURN TO THE R HEADING OF 130 DEGS. HE THEN HANDED US OFF TO THE NEXT CTLR WHO PROCEEDED TO TURN US HEADING OF 090 DEGS AND THEN 100 DEGS. THE CAPT QUESTIONED THE REASONS FOR THE TURNS. APCH ADVISED US THAT HE INTENDED TO BRING US TO L TFC FOR RWY 19L. HE ALSO ADVISED US THAT HE DID NOT WANT US TURNING N AT IPUMY. AFTER LNDG; THE CAPT CALLED APCH CTL TO QUESTION THE REASONS FOR THE NUMEROUS TURNS. THE SUPVR ADVISED THE CAPT THAT APCH DOES NOT USE THE NORTHERN RTE ANY MORE. AT THAT POINT; IT CAME APPARENT TO BOTH THE CAPT AND I THAT THE DATA IN THE MCDU WAS INCORRECT. THE TRAGR FOR RWY 19L SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME AS FOR RWY 25L. THE DATES FOR THE MCDU ACTIVE DATA WAS CURRENT MAY/THU/03 THRU JUN/THU/03. GIVEN THE TIME OF THE RWY CHANGE; THE SPD AND CLOSE PROX TO THE TURN AND RWY; PLUS THE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE CTLR'S INTENTIONS FOR THE L TFC RWY 19L; WE WERE UNABLE TO IDENT OR CATCH THE DISCREPANCY OF THE NEW DATA DEPICTED ON THE MCDU. AN EARLIER ADVISORY OF THE RWY CHANGE AND THE FULL INFO OF L TFC FOR RWY 19L WOULD HAVE GIVEN US THE TIME AND INFO NEEDED TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION.